Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries

BACKGROUND: Various adjuvant are being used with local anesthetics for prolongation of intra operative and postoperative analgesia in epidural block for lower limb surgeries. Dexmedetomidine, the highly selective α(2) adrenergic agonist is a new neuroaxial adjuvant gaining popularity. The aim of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaur, Sarabjit, Attri, Joginder Pal, Kaur, Gagandeep, Singh, Tejinder Pal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25422602
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140838
_version_ 1782345262140751872
author Kaur, Sarabjit
Attri, Joginder Pal
Kaur, Gagandeep
Singh, Tejinder Pal
author_facet Kaur, Sarabjit
Attri, Joginder Pal
Kaur, Gagandeep
Singh, Tejinder Pal
author_sort Kaur, Sarabjit
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Various adjuvant are being used with local anesthetics for prolongation of intra operative and postoperative analgesia in epidural block for lower limb surgeries. Dexmedetomidine, the highly selective α(2) adrenergic agonist is a new neuroaxial adjuvant gaining popularity. The aim of the present study was to compare the hemodynamic, sedative and analgesia potentiating effects of epidurally administered dexmedetomidine when combined with ropivacaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in prospective, randomized double-blind manner in which 100 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologist Grade I and II in the age group of 20-65 years of either sex under going lower limb surgeries were included after taking informed consent. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 50 each. Epidural anesthesia was given with 150 mg of 0.75% ropivacaine in Group A (n = 50) and 150 mg of 0.75% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) in Group B (n = 50). Two groups were compared with respect to hemodynamic changes, block characteristics which included time to onset of analgesia at T10, maximum sensory analgesic level, time to maximum sensory and motor block, time to regression at S1 dermatome and time to the first dose of rescue analgesia for 24 h. At the end of study, data was compiled and analyzed statistically using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and Student t-test. P < 0.05 was considered to be significant and P < 0.001 as highly significant. RESULTS: Significant difference was observed in relation to the duration of sensory block (375.20 ± 15.97 min in Group A and 535.18 ± 19.85 min in Group B [P - 0.000]), duration of motor block (259.80 ± 15.48 min in Group A and 385.92 ± 17.71 min in Group B [P - 0.000]), duration of post-operative analgesia (312.64 ± 16.21 min in Group A and 496.56 ± 16.08 min in Group B [P < 0.001]) and consequently low doses of rescue analgesia in Group B (1.44 ± 0.501) as compared to Group A (2.56 ± 0.67). Sedation score was significantly more in Group B in the post-operative period. CONCLUSION: Epidural Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to Ropivacaine is associated with prolonged sensory and motor block, hemodynamic stability, prolonged postoperative analgesia and reduced demand for rescue analgesics when compared to plain Ropivacaine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4236931
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42369312014-11-24 Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries Kaur, Sarabjit Attri, Joginder Pal Kaur, Gagandeep Singh, Tejinder Pal Saudi J Anaesth Original Article BACKGROUND: Various adjuvant are being used with local anesthetics for prolongation of intra operative and postoperative analgesia in epidural block for lower limb surgeries. Dexmedetomidine, the highly selective α(2) adrenergic agonist is a new neuroaxial adjuvant gaining popularity. The aim of the present study was to compare the hemodynamic, sedative and analgesia potentiating effects of epidurally administered dexmedetomidine when combined with ropivacaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in prospective, randomized double-blind manner in which 100 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologist Grade I and II in the age group of 20-65 years of either sex under going lower limb surgeries were included after taking informed consent. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 50 each. Epidural anesthesia was given with 150 mg of 0.75% ropivacaine in Group A (n = 50) and 150 mg of 0.75% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) in Group B (n = 50). Two groups were compared with respect to hemodynamic changes, block characteristics which included time to onset of analgesia at T10, maximum sensory analgesic level, time to maximum sensory and motor block, time to regression at S1 dermatome and time to the first dose of rescue analgesia for 24 h. At the end of study, data was compiled and analyzed statistically using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and Student t-test. P < 0.05 was considered to be significant and P < 0.001 as highly significant. RESULTS: Significant difference was observed in relation to the duration of sensory block (375.20 ± 15.97 min in Group A and 535.18 ± 19.85 min in Group B [P - 0.000]), duration of motor block (259.80 ± 15.48 min in Group A and 385.92 ± 17.71 min in Group B [P - 0.000]), duration of post-operative analgesia (312.64 ± 16.21 min in Group A and 496.56 ± 16.08 min in Group B [P < 0.001]) and consequently low doses of rescue analgesia in Group B (1.44 ± 0.501) as compared to Group A (2.56 ± 0.67). Sedation score was significantly more in Group B in the post-operative period. CONCLUSION: Epidural Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to Ropivacaine is associated with prolonged sensory and motor block, hemodynamic stability, prolonged postoperative analgesia and reduced demand for rescue analgesics when compared to plain Ropivacaine. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4236931/ /pubmed/25422602 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140838 Text en Copyright: © Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kaur, Sarabjit
Attri, Joginder Pal
Kaur, Gagandeep
Singh, Tejinder Pal
Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
title Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
title_full Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
title_short Comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
title_sort comparative evaluation of ropivacaine versus dexmedetomidine and ropivacaine in epidural anesthesia in lower limb orthopedic surgeries
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25422602
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1658-354X.140838
work_keys_str_mv AT kaursarabjit comparativeevaluationofropivacaineversusdexmedetomidineandropivacaineinepiduralanesthesiainlowerlimborthopedicsurgeries
AT attrijoginderpal comparativeevaluationofropivacaineversusdexmedetomidineandropivacaineinepiduralanesthesiainlowerlimborthopedicsurgeries
AT kaurgagandeep comparativeevaluationofropivacaineversusdexmedetomidineandropivacaineinepiduralanesthesiainlowerlimborthopedicsurgeries
AT singhtejinderpal comparativeevaluationofropivacaineversusdexmedetomidineandropivacaineinepiduralanesthesiainlowerlimborthopedicsurgeries